Peak 2020: when the year and a half Bolton spent as NSA to Trump is the real problem, but not one moment of the thirty-five years before that, and much seems to be forgiven because he might get a dunky-poo on bad orange man.
John Bolton's new book...
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
I haven't heard a lot of people forgiving him of anything. In fact, he seems to have very few friends at this point, since the Left hates him for being a GOP Hawk(not to mention not testifying to congress when asked before the Impeachment trial) and the Right Hates him for being a "Never Trumper".
He's alienated both sides and can look forward to eating his lunch at an empty table for a long time, to borrow an expression.
I'm in favour of pushing every single charge that will stick, both when it comes to Trump and Bolton. This isn't just a matter of the last 3,5 years, or 1,5 in the case of Bolton, but rather the fact that all of their misdeeds are brought into the light when they enter office.
Honestly, you've just got to take down who you can. Bolton is gone and he's already got away with all his sins but Trump remains, so that's where the effort needs to aim. If Bolton's a convenient ally for the task, we can take him for the duration. We stomached Stalin for 4 years, we can stomach Bolton for 4 months.
This just seems like another politically motivated, futile legal exercise to get Trump gone. First 'the Russians did it' then it was Trump's date with a pornstar now it's a phone call with the Ukrainian PM(a country itself corrupt to the bone but now suddenly a beacon of integrity because Mr Bolton says so). I'm not a Trump fan but let's be honest it's a farce. Most government crimes fall under executive orders, congressional mandates or 'national security' and can't even be prosecuted under the separation of powers. That's why they get away with it because they can only prosecute on form not on substance. After 9/11 the judicial branch can't make a dent anymore on the executive.
Also wouldn't say too loud that Bolton is gone. You never know when he might resurface. That guy is like a Rasputin. xD
What it is to me is nothing short of a full-court press by neocons to pull the Democratic party as hard right as possible under false pretense while the opportunity presents. None of these simpering piss-buckets ever seem to voice strong concern or objection to Trump's policy -- to wit, Bolton is only mad Trump didn't start World War III -- they only object to Trump's conduct. Hate to break it to you guys, the only people to whom Trump represents a "unique threat" or "unprecedented shift" that "can't be normalized", are these "never Trump" Republicans; all Trump ultimately represents is honesty in Republican governance.
The russians did meddle in the election, perhaps not encouraged by Trump, but the outcome was certainly affected, combined with the oddly timed Comey letter and you've got a republican president.
Trump did pay off a pornstar for something, and he did it with funds that he wasn't supposed to use for that kind of thing, but the pornstar still didn't follow the rules and thus it was dismissed (I'm actually ok with this one).
We literally know that Trump interfered in Ukraine in order to hurt the Biden candidacy, even without any Bolton testimony, but traitorous hacks like Collins was to cowardly to push for impeachment or additional witnesses (Where Bolton could have been compelled to testify).
None of the aforementioned cases were by executive order, and even when a president signs an EO they can be impeached, but in a stupid two party system there will never be impeachment unless the financial interests of the 1% are threatened, or the other party takes control of the house and senate.
The executive only has the power granted to it, the senate is not doing it's job, and congress has ceded power to the executive since before Iraq.
Yeah, that is why Trump is an easy target for legal scrutiny because of poor form not because of criminal policy(like illegal wars for example) or the reason why the Dems want him gone because he's an agitator. They want to discredit Trump's legitimacy out of political motivations. That is the real issue here.
Bush jr for example went through all the proper channels or knew how to abuse the institutions to not violate legal precedents and none in his cabinet were ever prosecuted for the most serious crimes(Iraq war under false pretenses, Abu Ghraib prison scandal, extraordinary rendition(ie torture), indefinite detention without charge, the shit that went on in Guantanamo etc.) The list is endless. All because Bush knew how to cover himself and his administration under EO's, congeressional support or even entirely new departments and draconinan laws like the Patriot act and dept of homeland security. Or knew how to divide and conquer by manipulating the media and putting the electorate against congress because people in his administation were smarter.
Trump on the other hand is constantly subject of legal attacks is it not 'the Russians'(like Americans are too stupid to vote and believe everything on Facebook) or because he told some third rate pornstar he did the dirty with not to tell. Like, really? When previous administations got away with the most heinous crimes this is suddenly grounds to prosecute a democratically chosen president?
I understand why most of congress(even if the Republicans still openly support Trump), the judicial branch and various departments(espescially State) want him gone. But it has nothing to do with any of the issues they try to prosecute him for. That is just bad form on Trump's part. The real reason is just the intense dislike of Trump on part of the establishment and the fact that he's an agitator for parts of the electorate. If the American voting public disagree with his policies there is always the next election but this is exactly what the establishment is so afraid of and why they want him gone.
The legal exercise to get Trump gone failed a few months ago - in no small part perhaps due to John Bolton, who put sticking it to the libs ahead of moral objection and good governance, like the rest of his thoroughly rotten-to-the-core party (except perhaps a few like Mitt Romney).
This is a political exercise to get Trump gone politically, by trying to make clear what a self-serving shitweasel he is.
I'd say Trump represents a unique threat and unprecedented shift that can't be normalized to any American.
He's a corrupt demagogue. The same sort of corrupt demagogue that dismantles democracy completely whenever they get the chance. He's of the same breed as Orban, Erdogan and Putin. If you leave such a politician to his own devices then democracy will eventually be abolished. And Trump very noticeably behaves in the same way as them. The only difference between Trump and those leaders is that American institutions are too strong but Trump has already massively weakened those institutions in his first four years.
I think also he demonstrates the appetite for autocratic demagogues amongst the people. It's not just that Trump is assailing democratic institutions, he's being cheered on for it, because a lot of his base believe the institutions to be fundamentally corrupt. Of course, so do a lot of Trump's opponents think those institutions are corrupt, too, it's just his opponents mostly seem to think the institutions need to be cleaned up rather than eradicated or knocked aside, because they're suspicious of autocrats. If that attitude amongst Trump supporters is not addressed, the USA will inevitably elect more authoritarian populists, and that certainly will end up seriously eroding democracy.
Trump is not quite in the same league as those others you mention, though. They are serious politicians with serious political agendas. Trump is merely a self-serving amateur. All this policy stuff he keeps barking about it, most of it doesn't really mean anything to him except as a means to show himself off. Relative to those leaders, he haphazardly dabbles at removing contraints because he has no agenda other than his own self-gratification and self-importance: he only picks at something when it happens to get in his way.
Yeah, Bush should be in jail, so should Cheney, Rumsfeld, and a dozen others. But thing is, during this presidency there was an attempt to sanction a president, to impeach him that he may be removed from office and stand trial, and it failed because the republicans decided that having their man on the throne was more important than justice. Your entire argument seems to be based on the assumption that we are okay with previous administrations avoiding punishment, most of us are not.
Donald Trump have been blatant in his misuse of power and corruption, and in most cases an argument of national interest cannot reasonably be made, so of course it is easier to make a case against the man, that is why we're pushing so hard, because it should be a win, because the smoking gun is there.
And I don't buy that "he's an agitator" crap, he is a figurehead that signs the worst kind of legislation for the worst kind of people and is defended by a media outlet that is by all standards part of the news establishment.
The "next election" argument is somewhat reasonable, but impeachment is an actual tool meant to remove unfit presidents, however the establishment saw fit to protect one of the most unfit characters the US has ever seen. And with the entrenchment and manipulation from the republican party, both state and federal, I wouldn't hold my breath when it comes to fair elections.
If you think this is a remotely new trend especially among Republicans, you haven't been paying attention. At all. This has been going on across all levels -- regulatory capture, dismantling federal and state bureaucracies, media deregulation, civil liberties erosion coupled with surveillance and police state expansion, privatization of the criminal justice system and intelligence to match defense, mass disenfranchisement -- since at least Reagan. Where Trump differs from past politicians, and the only way Trump differs, is he does it in the open.
Those "American institution" you claim to be "too strong" were already weak enough that Trump secured the Republican nomination and went on to win the election in the first place.
I'd say populists strongmen can roughly be sorted into two groups. Those that do have serious political agendas and those who just think its all a game and want power just because they enjoy it.
Putin is without a doubt a very serious politician. I believe his neo Soviet ambitions are sincere and with Russia having been a superpower until recently there are reasons as to why he would strive for such policies. But Erdogan is already a lot murkier. Somewhere he must realize that the blend between Islamism and dictatorship he's introducing has already failed everywhere else. That he still strives for it doesn't strike me as serious politics but merely him wishing to enjoy the perks of being dictator regardless of how it effects Turkey.
Wilders has all the traits of a demagogue but he's an all around serious politicians. Very well informed, a good debater, a firm grasp of what he wants to accomplish and a fear for Islam that's genuine. In contrast the other Dutch populist is a complete clown. A failed pseudo philosopher who seems to hold the actual work required for a member of parliament in disdain.
And in the UK I can accept Farage really being a wacky idealist. A destructive idealist but an idealist all the same. But with Boris Johnson I think he's more a clown. The lack of preparation and general clumsiness in his actions suggest he likes holding the title of prime minister more than he likes actually being prime minister.
Salvini claims to be a real politician with a serious political agenda. He wants to get rid of all those refugees in Italy. Fair enough, but when he cheers on Orban who's largely responsible for the EU not being able to transfer migrants away from Italy, then it becomes very clear that its mostly an act and that he just wants to abuse the crisis to get votes.
If you break it down I think you'll find many demagogues share it with Trump that they are only in it for their own self gratification. Men like Baudet, Bolsonaro and possibly Boris Johnson. And on the other hand you have demagogues who are all around terrible people who want terrible things but do genuinely believe this is for the best, politicians like Wilders, Le Pen and Putin.
It probably reflects rather poorly on the electorate that the demagogues for who its one big joke typically perform better then those who treat their job seriously. Wilders is about to get eaten up by Baudet and for all her apparent competence Le Pen never won. Meanwhile the biggest example of a clown populist managed to instantly get elected as the most powerful man in the world.
The thing is no one is going to see it that way. If people disapprove of Trump's policies, regardless if he's a 'figurehead', they only have to wait a few months to vote for another candidate and remove Trump from office. That is how it works in a democracy. But the establishment want to bypass all that. But have you considered what could happen if Trump won the elections but was subsequently removed through a politically motivated trial? That could lead to some serious confrontations in the capital.
I don't want to see Trump re-elected either but if it's not through democratic means than what is even the point? An oligarchy for people's own good? It also doesn't address the structural problems of weak institutions, disproportionate influence of the corporate lobby on legislative process and poor democratic controls. Guess why the establishment want Trump gone but not bolster these? Because he's simply not 'their' puppet.
Certainly it is a few months before people can vote him out now, but what about when impeachment was underway? Back then it was 10 months, when he shattered the Iran deal it was a year and a half, when he first lied to the press as a president it was four years. If we're bringing democracy into the argument then more than 50% of the US population wanted an investigation into Trump during impeachment, but their representatives refused to follow through on that demand.
You keep talking about the establishment being against Trump, but I just don't see it, he is protected by Fox, he is backed by republicans in congress and the senate, there seems to be no crime this man cannot commit that would cause him to lose their support.
The problem is that politics in the US is about winning, not about making things better or even about governing, and this stems from the moronic first past the post system. Democracy is about the art of the possible, and the US has forgotten that.
I don't think Trump was ever 'backed' not even by Republicans he was just placated because he's the only popular candidate they have or had just as Trump placated christian conservatives with supreme court nominees despite him not exactly being, ehm, 'christian conservative' himself. It's a marriage of convenience. Trump is still the outsider just as pretty much any member of his cabinet that tried to stick a knife in his back after they left office are from the establishment. These are people who knew exactly what kind of person Trump was but tried to use their clout to push their agenda but turned against him when that failed. The establishment wants to discredit Trump's tenure with that same dishonesty at every turn but it's ofcourse logical that the Republican party wants to prevent that in order to not lose their hold on congress and the presidency. The establishment is not just a political party it is the entire collective of established interests and institutional calcifications. And those are definitely anti-Trump and have been from the very start. Again, in this case for good reasons but it's up to the voters to decide not a politically motivated trial.
Outside elections, Trump cannot be removed except by a politically-motivated trial, because impeachment is the preserve of a political body.
I doubt the Founding Fathers expected political parties to dominate the electoral landscape so much. I suspect they imagined that congressional members would be first and foremost be individuals, because that was very much how it was at the time. Parties were loose affiliations of likeminded people that could easily left or joined, not at all the professional, heavily centralised organisations that effectively make or break political careers that they are now.
Trump has taken over a significant chunk of the establishment, and is defended where it counts by another large chunk. It's no longer meaningful to say Trump is not the establishment.
A lot of these problems go to a core issue, of what happens when a large chunk of the population in a democracy don't actually want a democracy any more. What if they really are content with a pseudo-democracy, where everything's rigged so their party wins, and the president or prime minister is a de facto dictator? In that case, that's where it ends up.
I think that's a misconception, a misconception that is not shared by the political class and thus it can't influence their actions. Trump simply isn't an outsider. He has never been an outsider. He too is from the establishment. He's an openly corrupt businessman, pretty much the ruling class of America and he has always mingled with his fellow elites. At worst he's an insider from the business elite rather than the political elite. Considering how intertwined those groups are in general, and especially in America this will never be an issue for the elites.
The idea that Trump is an outsider sticking up for the common man is a farce. And everyone involved in politics knows that its a farce. The only one genuinely taken in by Trump's act are either the extremely desperate or the extremely dense part of the electorate. Nor is there a fear that Trump would need to damage the establishment to keep his cover because so far that simply hasn't happened. Trump has been using his office to benefit himself and elites like him. His stance on regulations isn't to keep them around in order to benefit the common man, but to remove them in order to benefit his corporate buddies. His stance on tax policy isn't to aid the common man but the ultra rich. Trump has never harmed the establishment in order to curry favor with the common man. He simply never needed to do that because for some reason people outside of politics took it at face value that he was an ''outsider''
The interests of the elites and Trump are aligned perfectly. That's why the Republican establishment allowed themselves to be corrupted so easily. They might not like or respect Trump but his policies are largely those they always wanted. If they let him dismantle democracy he gives them all kinds of gifts. As far as their own private, coldly selfish benefits are concerned no one within the establishment has any real reason to fear Trump and his policies. A hypothetical Trump dictatorship would be paradise for the 1%. And that means that those that oppose him might not be because he stands in the way of their interests but because they genuinely fear what his incompetence and disregard for democracy will lead to. There is a lot of bad things you can say about the American elites but its not hard to imagine that their objections to Trump are noble and not at all concerned with their private welfare.
Then the question becomes which would be worse Trump being removed by non democratic means or Trump being elected by non-democratic means?
Redmap, Voter Purges, Restrictive Voter ID Laws, and Good Ole Voter Intimidation. Trump's election has been marred from the outset. But people say honor it, even if you were wronged by any of those occurrences.
What's the point of honoring democracy if parties are doing everything they can to undermine it and rob the citizens' of their voices? Why should one party make a mockery of what they supposedly hold dear and then call for America to believe in the PR of the sanctity of Democracy by honoring elections that needed untold numbers of voters to be silenced and districts to be wiped out to give one side an advantage?